i.J' 1 COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMAR^ TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SMT justice SUMATHl JAGADAM \AIPIT PFTITION (AT) MD! 126 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH I THE Between; Challa Kalarani, W/o Santhi _ Agricultural Extension Officer, Manubolu 1880, 3'“ Line, P Ramachandra Reddynagar District, Andhra Pradesh i Bhushan Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Manubolu (M), R/o H No 26-2- Gandhinagar, SPSR Nellore ...PETITIONER AND Pradesh, Represented by its Special Chief 1 The State of Andhra ■ secretary. Agriculture and Co-operation (AGRL. IV) Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Road, Chuttugunta, Guntur- 522004 Old Mirchi Yard, Nallapadu 3. The Joint Director of Agriculture Mini By-Pass Road, Rama Murthy Nagar, Nellore-524001, SPSR Nellore District, of Agriculture (Regular), Gudur, SPSR Nellore 4. The Assistant Director District ...respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may respondent in rejecting the the circumstances stated in the declare the action of the 2 nd be pleased to request of the applicant for pay fixation of the applicant on par with ion wef 07-02-2009 and for considering other AEOs recruited in 2009 is the seniority discriminatory arbitrary, unjust, illegal the Constitution and and against the Fundamental Rights consequently set aside the and further to direct the guaranteed under impugned proceedings dated 13-12-2018 H, with the other direct for promotion as respondents to consider the applicant's case on par consider the applicant's case recruit AEOs and Aaricultural Officer on par with other direct 7the applicant fron, the date of the Notification and sanction ,ncre.e Of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No 32416 of 201 a recruits of 2009 and fix the pay as per the orders 01-05-2018. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file this additional affidavit along with additional papers enclosed herewith for proper adjudication of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRi M. ViJAY KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL REP. SRI C. L. N. GANDHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010183362022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATl (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 3459 TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION (AT) No.126 OF 2022 Between: Petitioner Challa Kalarani and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation (AGRL.IV) Department, Secretariat,Velagapudi, Guntur District and 3 others. Counsel for the petitioner Respondents Sri M. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Counsel Rep. Sri C.L.N. Gandhi Learned Government Pleader for Services-ll Counsel for the respondents The Court made the following ORDER. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 2"'^ respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for fixation with effect from 07.02.2009 and for considering her seniority with other Agricultural Extension Officer’s (AEO) recruited in 2009 discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the pay on par IS 2 JS, J ' WP (AT) No. 126/2022 nd respondent, dated 13.12.2018, and impugned proceedings of Ihe 2 further direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case on par with other direct recruit AEOs, consider her case for promotion as Agricultural Officer on par with other direct recruits of 2009 and to fix the pay of the petitioner from the date of Notification and sanction increments as per the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.32416 of 2012, dated 01.05.2018. Brief facts of the case. The petitioner was born on 15.07.1975. She was just short of attaining the age of 34 years as on 01.07.2009. As she passed requisite I B.Sc., degree in Agricultural Science, she applied for the post of Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-ll through Direct Recruitment. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.3190 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) to declare the action of the respondent authorities in prescribing the upper age limit of 33 years in the notification dated 07.02.2009 in violation of G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 29.02.2008, as illegal and to consequently direct the authorities to consider her application by taking the maximum age limit as 34 years. 3. By virtue of interim order, dated 19.02.2009, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3190 of 2009, the petitioner was allowed to participate 4. See**e,<G£^ 3 JS, J WP (AT) No. 126/2022 in the selection process for the post of Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-ll. Thereafter, by order, dated 05.06.2009, passed in M.A.No.1700 of 2009, the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to declare the result of the petitioner. The petitioner secured 73.26% and stood within the roster point No.261 reserved for O.C. (W). O.A.No.3190 of 2009 was clubbed with other connected O.As. and all the O.As were dismissed on 24.04.2012, Questioning the dismissal order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.32416 of 2012. The Writ Petition was allowed on 01.05.2018 with the following observation: 5. “On the above analysis, this Court finds in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the common order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Tribunal in so far as it pertained to the petitioner, the second applicant in O.A. No.3190 of 2009. The respondents are directed to give effect to the selection of the petitioner pursuant to the Notification, dated 07.02.2009, and appoint her to the Post of Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-ll forthwith.” On 31.05.2018, the O''' respondent *in Rc.No.Estt.il 1/2212/2008 appointed the petitioner as AEO Grade-ll. Furthermore, the 3''' respondent, through proceedings No.Estt.lil/2212/2008, dated 05.09.2018, regulated the petitioner's pay under RPS-2015, with effect from her date of joining. On 08.10.2018, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3"^ respondent to fix her pay from the date of the 6. 4 JS, J WP (AT) No. 126/2022 Notification and sanction notional increments from 07.02.2009 in terms of the orders passed in the Writ Petition and further to include her the panel year of 2009 and to promote her as Agricultural Officer. The 2"“ respondent, through Memo No.A5(1)700/2017, rejected the petitioner's request with the following observation: name in dated 13.12.2018, “No retrospective promotion can be granted nor seniority be assigned on retrospective basis from when the employee was not borne in a particular cadre. can the a date This writ petition is filed questioning the aforesaid dated 13.12.2018. proceedings 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have misinterpreted the order passed in Writ Petition No.32416 of 2012, dated 01.05.2018. The Writ Petition was allowed directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner forthwith; the 2"" respondent cannot say that the direction was limited to appoint her as Agricultural Extension seniority by following Rule 33 and finally prayed to allow Officer Grade-ll but must also consider her of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules the Writ Petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ba/wanf Singh Namai 5 JS, J WP (AT) No, 126/2022 and others v. State of Haryana and others\ Para Nos.9 and 10 of the judgment are extracted hereunder: There is no dispute about these general principles. But the question here is in regard to seniority of Respondents 4 to 16 selected on 01.10.1993 against certain vacancies of 1992-1993 who were not appointed due to litigation, and those who were selected against subsequent vacancies. All others from the same merit list declared on 01.10.1993 were appointed on 02.06.1994. t Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar {{^998) 5 SCC 246} held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. “9. 10. This Court while allowing the appeals by Respondents 4 to 16 by order dated 06.12.1999 made it clear that all the 30 persons recommended by the Commission as per merit list dated 01.10.1993, including Respondents 4 to 16 are entitled to be appointed. The State Government submitted that but for the order dated 04.04.1994 of the High Court, Respondents 4 to 16 would have been appointed on 02.06.1994 itself. The order dated 04.04.1994 was ultimately set aside by this Court and Respondents 4 to 16 who were consequently appointed should not be denied the benefit of seniority. Therefore, the State Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority and placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates selected in the common merit list (published on 01.10.1993) and (2008) 7 SCC 728 6 JS, J ' WP (AT) No. 126/2022 appointed on 02.06.1994. Respondents 4 to 16 have been given retrospective seniority not from the date of their selection as wrongly assumed by the appellants, but from 02.06.1994 when other selected candidates in their merit list were appointed.” 9. The Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-ll on 31.05.2018. Her pay was fixed based on her date of joining in the said post, and the benefits, as admissible to her, were extended only from that date and not from the earlier date since the petitioner was not in service at all from 07.02.2009. Furthermore, the petitioner worked as a Block Technology Manager (BTM) on a contract basis in ATMA, Nellore, from 2011 onwards, which cannot be considered a regular Agricultural Extension Officer post. Therefore, the rejection order issued by the 2"'* respondent is appropriate, and the Writ Petition is prayed to be dismissed. This Court has considered the submissions of Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, 10. learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri C.L.N. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-ll, appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. r 7 JS, J WP (AT) No. 126/2022 11. The argument put forth by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has considerable force when the selection of the petitioner was found to be in order and was appointed on the basis of the selection that took place vide Notification dated 07.02.2009, it is not open for the respondents to deny the benefits to the petitioner, which she is otherwise entitled to on par with her colleagues who were selected along with the petitioner as per the Notification dated 07.02.2009. The only contention of the petitioner was that the maximum age 12. limit should be taken to 34 years. However, the OA filed by the petitioner was clubbed with other O.As and the said issue was not pertinent to the petitioner’s cases at all. Hence, such delay cannot be held against the petitioner when determining the benefits she is legally entitled to. The petitioner was unjustly denied increments and seniority, making her junior to ail the selected candidates from the same notification. She is also denied her legally entitled pay and increments. Under similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.32416 13. of 2012 clearly stated that the petitioner should be appointed as Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-ll immediately. The respondent authorities cannot deny the seniority, pay, and increments she deserves with her batch mates, which discriminates against her. Thus, based on the 8 JS, J ' WP (AT) No. 126/2022 case facts, it is appropriate to set aside the 2^^^^ respondent's proceedings dated 13.12.2018. In State of Haryana and others v. Dinesh Kumar^, the Civil Appeal No. 1840 of 2007, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) 14. No. 1840 of 2007, and the Civil Appeal No.85 of 2008, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14939 of 2007, were decided differently by two co-ordinate benches of the same High Court. Para No.31 of the said judgment is relevant to the instant case and is extracted hereunder: In the result, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 1840 of 2007 is dismissed, while the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 14939 of 2007 is allowed. The Judgment of the High Court dated 22"'^ September, 2005 impugned in the said appeal, is set aside and the concerned respondents are directed to take steps to issue appointment letters to the appellants in the said appeals subject to fulfillment of other conditions by them. It is also made clear that the appellants will be deemed to have been appointed as Constable-Drivers with effect from the date, persons lower in merit to them were appointed. However, while they will be entitled to the notional benefits of such continuous appointment, they will be entitled to salary only from the date of this judgment on the basis of such notional benefits.” 31. (Emphasis supplied) ^ 2008 (3) see 222 9 JS, J WP (AT) No. 126/2022 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court had situation in Sanjay Dhar Commission and another^, that the appellant therein an occasion to deal with similar V. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed was selected for the post of Munsif prepared by the J&K Public Service Commission i in the list in the year 1993 and is protected by the interim order of the who secured 3'“ Rank in the select list and entitled to the relief. His High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, as such the appellant is fully appointment is being calculated with effect from the same date with which the candidates finding their place in the order of prepared by the J&K Public appointment, issued pursuant to the select list Service Commission for 1992-1993 were appointed and deserves to be with the order of merit The relevant portion of assigned notionaiiy a piace of seniority consistentiy assigned by the J8K Public Service Commission. the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “We have already noticed the directed the appellant to be learned Single Judge having appointed on the post of Munsif in the event of his name finding place in the select list subject to the outcome of the writ petition which order was modified by the in LPA staying the order of the learned Single Division Bench i but at the same time directing one vacancy to be kept reserved. The High Court and the Government of J&K (Law Department) of the High Court and were not justified in by-passing the judicial order making appointments exhausting all available vacancies. The right ® (2000) 8 see 182 10 JS, J WP (AT) No. 126/2022 of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 06.03.1995 ad assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated 06.03.1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as above, the Writ Petition is allowed setting-aside the impugned proceedings of the 2"'* respondent, dated 13.12.2018, and consequently the 2'^^ respondent is directed to fix the pay of the petitioner on par with other selected candidates, who were appointed as per the Notification, dated 07.02.2009, except the benefit of r- ! -j 11 JS, J WP (AT) No. 126/2022 back wages for the period the petitioner was not in service (has not worked). Further, the respondents are directed to grant all the benefits per the entitlement of the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. as Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR II //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To 1. The Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation (AGRL. IV) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Old Mirchi Yard, Nallapadu Road, Chuttiigunta, Guntur- 522004 3. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Mini By-Pass Road, Rama Murthy Nagar, Nellore-524001, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Gudur, SPSR Nellore District 5. One CC to Sri C. L. N. Gandhi, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb ■ ^ HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.126 of 2022 S 2«MAH20?5 I Current Section , ^ ro ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS